Children’s and Adults’ Understanding of Faux Pas and Insults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We examined 7- to 11-year-old children’s and adults’ social understanding by presenting stories containing either a verbal faux pas or a deliberate insult. Participants were asked about the speaker’s knowledge, intent, and affect, and about the listener’s perception of the speaker’s intent, and the listener’s affect before and after the speaker apologized. Nine-year-olds, 11-year-olds, and adults recognized that the speaker’s knowledge or ignorance, but younger children did not. All age groups judged that the speaker did not intend harm and that the listener would not perceive the listener as intending harm. Nine-year-olds, 11-year-olds, and adults rated the speaker as feeling worse in faux pas stories than in insult stories, but younger children did not. All age groups rated the listener as feeling worse in insult stories than in faux pas stories. Children judged that an apology would improve the listener’s feelings more than adults did.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".